> Do you think it was widely-accepted-as-a-positive when first implemented? No, but again we were talking about the present. > we can pretend to know a-priori

> Do you think it was widely-accepted-as-a-positive when first implemented? No, but again we were talking about the present. > we can pretend to know a-priori whether changes to the status quo on gun rights We don't need to pretend, thankfully: we have mountains of historical data on arms regulation we can cite - many of these regulations currently exist or existed for some substantial amount of time (and possibly ran/run afoul of current liberty-preserving SCOTUS 2A interpretation.) The typical argument is: "Well, if we just banned them all it would work! We didn't go far enough, that's why!" If this were a widely accepted idea, we would have ratified an amendment repealing the Second already.